Become a Member: JOIN SFPMA TODAY   LogIn / Register: LOGIN/REGISTER

SFPMA Industry Articles | news, legal updates, events & education! 

Find Blog Articles for Florida’s Condo, HOA and the Management Industry. 

Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

  • Posted: Dec 08, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

Federal Court Identifies Potential Collection Issue for Community Associations in Florida

Community association operations rely upon the timely and full payment of all assessments by all of the owners. One of the mechanisms that Florida law provides to put associations in a stronger position when an owner becomes delinquent is the “secured interest” of the association in the unpaid assessments by way of its ongoing lien against the unit or lot for the unpaid assessments. This secured interest puts the claim of the association at a higher priority than most other claims, other than a first mortgage or unpaid property taxes. However, a recent decision in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re: Adam, Case No.: 22-10140-MAM, September 23, 2022, has cast a potential cloud on that secured interest.

In the In re Adam case, the Association previously obtained a judgment of foreclosure for over $76,000, which was considered as a secured interest by the Court. The Association was also claiming an additional $36,558 which came due after the judgment was entered. The owners were asking the Court to decide that the $36,000 was not secured and therefore uncollectible in the bankruptcy (or at least not fully collectible).

In deciding whether certain association claims were secured and collectible in the bankruptcy setting, the Court undertook an analysis of Florida law on the subject. The Court noted that both the Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718 F.S.) and the Homeowner’s Association Act (Chapter 720 F.S.) currently contain express provisions that identify that the lien of the association is effective from the original recording of the declaration (with the added requirement in HOA’s that the declaration specifically expresses this lien right). However, the Court also points out that the Condominium Act was amended in 1992 to provide for this effective date. (The Homeowner’s Association Act was amended to provide for it in 2008.) Prior to these amendments, these Statutes provided for the effective date of the lien to be when it was recorded in the public records of the county. The analysis of the Court required it to consider whether the current version of the Statute applies to the situation or whether an earlier version of the Statute is the controlling authority. (This case involved a condominium so only the Condominium Act was considered in the decision.)

To make that determination, the Court applied the principles of the seminal case of Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), which require declarations to contain the specific phrase “as amended from time to time” when identifying the Statute that governs the documents in order for the current version of the Statute to apply. This is because Statutes are not retroactive in their application unless the legislature expressly makes them so in the Statute itself. Both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions do not allow for the State to make a law that infringes upon the vested rights in an existing contract (which would be the declaration). As a result, the contract (declaration) would need to have the specific “as amended from time to time” language (often called “Kaufman” language) to automatically incorporate changes to the Statute that is not otherwise retroactive.

When the Court reviewed the governing documents, it noted that they were from 1987 and did not have the Kaufman language. As such, the Court held that the provisions of the declaration were the same as the Statute in 1987, which provided that the lien was effective only upon being recorded in the public records of the county. Since the Association did not file another lien for the amount being claimed subsequent to the foreclosure judgment, the Court concluded that this portion was not secured. In the bankruptcy setting, this meant that the Association would likely be unable to recover most, if not all of this claim from the Debtors, Mr. and Ms. Adam.

While this issue may be most relevant to associations when dealing with a case in bankruptcy, it is possible that it could also be raised in state court foreclosure cases under certain circumstances. It is also important to note that this Bankruptcy Court did not include a significant issue in the analysis regarding the Statute at issue, that being whether or not the statutory provision was “substantive” or “procedural”, as those terms apply to this situation, which could have led to a different result. (This portion of the legal analysis is quite technical and beyond the scope of this article.)

For communities whose declarations were recorded prior to the statutory changes described above, the first step in protecting the interests of the association is to review the documents to determine whether Kaufman language is already in them. If not, the board may wish to consider proposing an amendment to the owners to change the documents to include this language, if not for the entire declaration, then at least for the timing of the effectiveness of the lien of the association. Having qualified legal counsel review these issues in the documents is a strong business practice.

About Robert
Robert L. Kaye is Board Certified in Condominium and Planned Development Law. Mr. Kaye attended Michigan State University, graduating with a B.B.A. in General Business in 1976. In 1986, Mr. Kaye graduated from the Detroit College of Law, magna cum laude. Mr. Kaye initially practiced tax law for the firm of Raymond, Rupp, Weinberg, Stone & Zuckerman, P.C. in Troy, Michigan, before moving to South Florida in 1987, joining Becker & Poliakoff to concentrate in the area of community association representation. In 1991, Robert Kaye left that employ to start Kaye & Roger, P.A. He was the managing shareholder of the Firm from its inception, directing all legal operations and overseeing its growth to represent over 1,000 Communities in South Florida at the time of its name change to Robert Kaye & Associates, P.A. on January 1, 2003.
On January 1, 2009 Mr. Kaye joined with Michael Bender to form Kaye & Bender, now known as Kaye Bender Rembaum, after Jeffrey Rembaum joined in 2012. Mr. Kaye serves on the Florida Bar’s Grievance Committee, is a member of the Condominium Committee of the Real Property Section of The Florida Bar, and previously served on the Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law. He also lectures on Community Association law and is regularly published on the subject. Mr. Kaye hosts KBR’s appearances on the radio show, ‘Ask the Experts’, from 6pm to 7pm, the first Thursday of each month.
See his full bio HERE.

Tags: ,
Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

  • Posted: Nov 09, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

Why Board Members Need to Understand The Difference Between Religious and Secular Holiday Displays

If your community association installs a holiday display, is that holiday display considered religious or secular? Are Christmas trees, menorahs, Nativity scenes, or the Kikombe cha Umoja (the Unity Cup used during Kwanzaa celebrations) considered religious or secular? How can you tell the difference? Why is the difference so very important to understand?

The reason it is important to understand the difference between a religious versus a secular display is that if your association does have a religious display, and a member makes a request to have a holiday display for their religion too, the association must honor the request in order to avoid a claim of religious discrimination. But, if the holiday display is secular, such obligation does not exist.

Fortunately, we have guidance from the United States Supreme Court to help associations differentiate between secular and religious symbols and displays. In the 1989 case of County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the Court held that the determination of whether decorations, including those used to commemorate holidays (which are or have been religious in nature), are religious or not turns on whether viewers would perceive the decorations to be an endorsement or disapproval of their individual religious choices. The constitutionality of the object is judged according to the standard of a reasonable observer.

Thus, the Court found that a Christmas tree, by itself, is not a religious symbol; although Christmas trees once carried religious connotations, “Today they typify the secular celebration of Christmas.” The Court also noted that numerous Americans place Christmas trees in their homes without subscribing to Christian religious beliefs and that Christmas trees are widely viewed as the preeminent secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season.

In contrast, the Court stated that a menorah is a religious symbol that serves to commemorate the miracle of the oil (lasting eight days when it should have only lasted one day) as described in the Talmud. However, the Court continued that the menorah’s significance is not exclusively religious, as it is the primary visual symbol for a holiday that is both secular and religious. When placed next to a Christmas tree, the Court found that the overall effect of the display, to recognize Christmas and Chanukah as part of the same winter holiday season, has attained secular status in our society. Therefore, we can conclude that a Christmas tree and menorah, side by side, are of a secular nature.

As to the Ten Commandments, in the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Court held that that the Ten Commandments are undeniably religious in nature and that no “recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind [the Court] to that fact.” The Court stated that the Ten Commandments do not confine themselves to secular matters (such as honoring one’s parents or prohibiting murder), but instead embrace the duties of religious observers.

Another important holiday decoration issue concerns whether the decoration constitutes a material alteration of the common elements or common area. Generally, unless a homeowners association’s declaration provides to the contrary, the homeowners association’s board of directors decides matters pertaining to material alterations. On the other hand, as to a condominium association, unless the terms of the declaration of condominium provide otherwise, 75 percent of the unit owners must vote to approve material alterations of the common elements.

If a member of your community wants to include their religious symbol in the association’s holiday display, remember to consider the types of symbols already being displayed by the association as compared to the member’s request. Once your community displays a religious symbol, then there is a good chance your community will need to allow other requested religious symbols to avoid a claim of religious discrimination. Use the guidance from the Supreme Court’s cases to differentiate between a secular symbol and a religious symbol. With that in mind, if an association allows a Christmas tree and menorah, the board of directors, far more likely than not, would not have to grant a member’s request to display a Nativity scene and the Ten Commandments. The rules of kindergarten work best: treat everyone fairly, and treat them as you would want to be treated.

Jeffrey Rembaum, Esq. of Kaye, Bender, Rembaum attorneys at law, legal practice consists of representation of condominium, homeowner, commercial and mobile home park associations, as well as exclusive country club communities and the developers who build them. Mr. Rembaum is a Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. He is the creator of ‘Rembaum’s Association Roundup’, an e-magazine devoted to the education of community association board members, managers, developers and anyone involved with Florida’s community associations.  His column appears monthly in the Florida Community Association Journal. Every year since 2012, Mr. Rembaum has been selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list and was also named Legal Elite by Florida Trends Magazine. He can be reached at 561-241-4462.

 

Tags: ,
IF THERE EVER WAS A TIME TO GET EDUCATED – Update

IF THERE EVER WAS A TIME TO GET EDUCATED – Update

  • Posted: Oct 10, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on IF THERE EVER WAS A TIME TO GET EDUCATED – Update

Update:  Eric Glazer, Esq.
Published October 10, 2022

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.

I just spent a week in the hospital — again with kidney stone issues.  This is I believe the 5th time I needed some sort of surgery for this never ending painful problem.  I left the hospital with a tube coming out of my right side.  I still need a lithotripsy procedure.  That’s the one where you lay down in water and they zap your kidney stones hoping to break them up.  I’m guessing I have another week or two of this insanity.

I want to apologize to the wonderful people at the L&L Condo and HOA Expos.  As all of you know, I always attend all of their shows all around the state and have the honor of kicking off the event by doing my board certification course.  Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend the events In Palm Beach and in Broward.  I am desperately hoping to attend the events in Orlando and Tampa.  I think all of you know that I love nothing more than being with all of you, teaching you, and answering your questions.  It’s simply my favorite part of being an attorney.  It’s killing me that I can’t teach the classes that so many of you attend each and every year.  However, L&L will be finding another well qualified attorney from another law firm to teach and certify you.  I urge you to attend and continue to make the L&L shows the success that they always are.

I’m taking two weeks off from the radio show.  I expect to do the show October 16th — with or without a tube coming out of my side.  BY THE WAY……THAT’S THE SAME DAY I WILL BE ON 60 MINUTES — AS THEY ARE DOING A SHOW ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GRANDMA AND GRANDPA CAN STILL MOVE TO A FLORIDA CONDOMINIUM IF THEIR SOLE INCOME IS SOCIAL SECURITY.  I think we all know the answer.   This really should be an amazing show which shines the spotlight on Florida condominiums but truly needs to be watched by the entire country as every state better follow Florida’s lead when it comes to mandating safety.

In any event, I hope to be back at my desk in a week or two and look forward to speaking with all of you again.  In the mean time, please get in touch with Rich, Pennie or Paul if you need immediate help.

PS: The nurse told me that the epidural was not invented to relieve pain from child birth.  It was invented to relieve pain from kidney stones!

 

We know everyone is wishing Eric Glazer a full recovery and well wishes.  Ouch

 

In light of the tragedy at The Champlain Towers in Surfside last year, The Florida Legislature, to its credit, passed massive condominium reform regarding safety, inspections and reserves.  These laws are confusing to those who work in the industry every day, never mind to those who serve on condo Boards throughout the state.

 

Stay up to date with the new law -FLORIDA BUILDING INSPECTIONS (SB-4D)

Florida Condo Building Inspections (SB4d)

http://FLBuildingInspections.com  a division of SFPMA

The State of Florida Property Management Association with Legal & Engineering Members are here to help you understand the new laws and how to take the correct action now to ensure you are in full compliance. 

 

The Florida Legislature thought that it was so important for condo boards to enforce these laws that they included a provision which considers a breach of these laws a breach of the director’s fiduciary duty.  Imagine, personal liability can be imposed against a director who fails to enforce these new laws.

Once again, I drafted legislation which would require Board members to learn these new laws in order to get certified and once again this requirement was removed from the statute.  It’s hard to believe, but The Florida Legislature drafted a law which imposes personal liability against those directors who fail to follow these new laws yet removed the requirement to learn these new laws.  In any event, I will again try to make learning these new laws a condition of becoming certified in the next legislative session.

As far as condominium Board members go…….there can be no more important time than the present to learn these new laws.  They are designed to keep you and your fellow unit owners alive.

Don’t dare get certified by signing that dumb, silly form that says I read my governing docs and promise to enforce them.  Even if you read your governing documents from cover to cover, you still wouldn’t learn any of the new condo laws.  What a disgrace that you can still become certified this way.

I am teaching at the following times and locations this month.  It is more imperative than ever to attend an educational course.  In fact, if you don’t learn the new laws and don’t apply the new laws on your condo board, you can face personal liability.  Moreover, any condo Board member who can’t find a few hours to take an educational course is not worthy of a single vote.  So what do you say?  Please register for any of the free following Condo Craze and HOAs Board Certification Classes offered around the state

Find the Condo & HOA Event Dates

 

Tags: , , ,
Searching for Money: A Condominium Association’s Guide to Acquiring Financing by Becker

Searching for Money: A Condominium Association’s Guide to Acquiring Financing by Becker

  • Posted: Sep 21, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Searching for Money: A Condominium Association’s Guide to Acquiring Financing by Becker

Searching for Money: A Condominium Association’s Guide to Acquiring Financing

by Steven B. Lesser  of Becker

A Condominium Association enjoys broad powers based upon Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, otherwise known as “The Florida Condominium Act.” Despite the guidance provided by the statute and case law which interprets it, little has been written to guide Condominium Associations when borrowing funds to finance various projects.

Associations often borrow money to build capital improvements such as clubhouses; perform extensive remedial work and to buy out recreational leases. Associations must be careful to review its own condominium documents to evaluate whether limitations exist on the right to borrow. This article will discuss the practical considerations to be addressed by a Condominium Association when borrowing funds.

 

Review Of The Condominium Documents
The condominium documents including the Declaration of Condominium, Articles of Incorporation and By-laws dictate how money can be raised to fund certain projects. the procedure to be followed depends upon the purpose for raising such funds. To the extent that the Association desires to perform maintenance work to its own property or common elements, money can be raised by passing a special assessment on its unit owners pursuant to Section 718.116, Florida Statutes. Most condominium documents provide the Association with the authority to borrow funds for such purposes without acquiring unit owner consent. However, to the extent that the Association desires to buy out a recreation lease, build a clubhouse or otherwise perform material alterations or acquire substantial additions to the common elements or to Association property, unit owner approval is necessary. Section 718.113, Florida Statutes provides that if the Declaration of Condominium is silent on the percentage of unit owners required to approve such activities seventy-five (75%) percent shall govern.

 

Where To Seek Financing
Once the Association has determined the purpose in raising funds, a source of financing must be located. Financing is often sought when the Association is unable to raise sufficient funds through a special assessment of its members. In many instances, some or all members may not have the money to pay a large lump sum assessment. Typically, an Association will first attempt to look to acquire financing from the bank that handles its operating account. However, the Association should not view the bank as its only source. Often times, members of the Association’s Board of Directors or unit owners may have personal contacts with a lender that is able to provide more favorable rates and flexibility in terms of structure and cost of financing. In some circumstances, a willingness to shift the Association’s operating account to another lender will provide the Association with leverage to acquire the most favorable financing program.

 

Structuring The Deal
Once the Association has acquired authorization to borrow money and has located a lending institution, structuring the deal becomes the next significant step.

It is not unusual for an Association to borrow in excess of $ 1 Million to finance the purchase of recreational lands from a Developer or to perform significant renovation work to remedy structural defects such as those associated with balconies located in close proximity to the ocean. Lending institutions, with the assistance of counsel for the Association, can be creative in formulating a plan to achieve the financial goals of the Association. The most significant aspect is how the lending institution will secure its loan to the Association.

Unlike other private entities and individuals, a Condominium Association has the statutory right to raise money by a special assessment of its members. Under this scenario, a unit owner’s failure to pay a special assessment will constitute a lien on each condominium parcel for any unpaid assessments. The lien for unpaid assessments will also be subject to an award of interest and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the Association to collect or enforce the lien. This statutory right to pass and enforce a special assessment provides security to a lending institution that elects to lend money to an Association. Consequently, a lender will often accept an Assignment of the Association’s right, title and interest in and to all current and future assessments made by the Association against its unit owner members for the purposes of timely payment of all sums due to a lender. For example, an agreement for the purchase of a recreation lease and underlying property between an Association and lender will often include an Assignment which provides as follows:

“The Association hereby irrevocably and unconditionally assigns all of its right, title and interest in and to all special assessments now existing or hereinafter levied by the Association against its unit owner members which are made for the purposes of repayment of the loan or the payment of rent under any lease or lease on real property owned by the Association.”

The foregoing procedure provides the lender with assurance that the loan will be repaid. However, financing a special assessment is expensive when considering loan and interest charges. Certain unit owners may be opposed to being assessed finance charges when they are financially capable of paying the special assessment in a lump sum at the time the loan is acquired. Should a number of unit owners have the ability to pay the special assessment in a lump sum, this process would reduce the total amount of money to be borrowed by the Association along with incidental finance charges.

As a special assessment constitutes an encumbrance on property, the Association would negotiate elimination of any prepayment penalty charges should the loan in whole or in part be paid early. Consequently, elimination of a pre-payment penalty clause would enable the Association or a unit owner to avoid additional finance charges should they pay off the debt prior to the maturity date.

 

Typical Costs Associated With Financing
Should the Association elect to mortgage its property to acquire financing the following fees will be generated:

Bank loan fees, Bank counsel fees, corporate searches, Survey, Title insurance costs, accounting costs, Documentary stamps, Intangible documentary stamps on the amount of the note and mortgage, Environment assessment of property, Recording charges, The cost of amending the condominium documents if additional property is acquired by the Association.

The Association and its counsel should attempt to discuss and negotiate the above-listed fees with the lending institution prior to signing a commitment letter. The Association should never sign a commitment letter without first consulting with counsel. Once the commitment letter is signed, the Association may be obligated to pay a non-refundable fee. Moreover, attempting to re-negotiate the terms of the loan may delay the process as it would require reconsideration by the loan committee.

 

Conclusion
In closing, a condominium Association must identify its purpose in raising funds. The purpose of raising funds will dictate the procedure to be followed. If funds are to be raised for maintenance repairs, a special assessment can be passed without unit owner consent. Condominium documents typically authorize the Board of Directors of a Condominium Association to borrow funds without owner consent. However, certain condominium documents may require unit owner approval. To the extent that the Association elects to borrow funds to perform material alterations or to acquire a substantial addition to Association property, the condominium documents will govern the procedure to be followed. If the condominium documents are silent, seventy-five (75%) percent unit owner approval must first be acquired before a special assessment can be passed pursuant to Section 718.113 (2), Florida Statutes.

When attempting to acquire financing, look to the members of Association’s board of directors and its unit owners to identify lender’s that can provide the most favorable rate. The bank handling the Association’s operating account is often the best source of financing and may be willing to negotiate certain costs associated with financing. Likewise, conferring with an attorney that specializes in association work can often assist you in reducing the costs associated with obtaining a loan.

Most importantly, shop around and take advantage of the collective financial strength of the Association and its unit owner members.

Steven B. Lesser

Shareholder

Ft. Lauderdale

 954.987.7550

 SLESSER@beckerlawyers.com

 

Tags: , ,
Congratulations, Jeff Rembaum, Firm Members and Attnys at Kaye Bender Rembaum

Congratulations, Jeff Rembaum, Firm Members and Attnys at Kaye Bender Rembaum

  • Posted: Aug 30, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Congratulations, Jeff Rembaum, Firm Members and Attnys at Kaye Bender Rembaum

Jeffrey A. Rembaum Once Again Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

Only 1.4% of Florida’s lawyers appear among the exclusive Florida Legal Elite, and Kaye Bender Rembaum is proud to announce attorney Jeffrey A. Rembaum, BCS has once again been selected.

Now in its 19th year, Florida Legal Elite presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. Florida Trend invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to name attorneys whom they highly regard or would recommend to others. The list of top vote recipients was examined using Florida Bar membership status and histories. A panel of previous Legal Elite honorees from across the state representing different practice areas reviewed the list of finalists. Congratulations, Jeffrey!

Allison L. Hertz Named Co-Chair of Condominium & Planned Development Committee of The Florida Bar’s RPPTL Section.

The Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (RPPTL) Section of the Florida Bar announced that attorney Allison L. Hertz, BCS of Kaye Bender Rembaum has been named Co-Chair of its Condominium & Planned Development Committee. Ms. Hertz, a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law, joins a long line of the most preeminent and respected attorneys in this field of law to have held this position.

“I am honored and proud to serve as Co-Chair for the Committee and will continue to provide input for the betterment of all Florida community associations”, said Allison Hertz. Jeffrey Rembaum added, “Ms. Hertz is extremely knowledgeable in this body of law, and will no doubt be a valuable asset to the RPPTL committee.”

Ms. Hertz is also the Vice-chair of the Condominium & Planned Development Law Certification Review Committee, and she recently served as Chair of the Condominium & Planned Development Committee’s Hurricane Protection Subcommittee, and was a member of the Committee’s Emergency Powers Task Force.

KBR Attorneys Elevated to Firm Members

Danielle M. Brennan, Esq., BCS has been elevated to Firm Member at Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L in Palm Beach Gardens, FL and Emily E. Gannon, Esq. has been elevated to Firm Member at Kaye Bender Rembaum, P.L in Pompano Beach, FL.

Danielle M. Brennan (pictured top left) is a Board Certified Specialist in Condominium and Planned Development Law. Ms. Brennan joined Kaye Bender Rembaum as an Associate Attorney in the Firm’s community association department in the Palm Beach Gardens’ office in April 2013. Ms. Brennan assists clients on all aspects of community association operations and enjoys leading presentations for managers and board members.

 

Emily E. Gannon (pictured bottom left) joined Kaye Bender Rembaum in April 2012, and assists the Firm’s association clients on all aspects of community association operations. Emily is also a frequent lecturer on community association law, which includes leading seminars providing CEUs for property managers and certifications for board members.

Congratulations to each new Firm Member of the Kaye Bender Rembaum team!

KBR’s Jeffrey Green Attains Florida Bar’s

Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law

The Florida Bar has confirmed Firm Member Jeffrey D. Green, to be officially certified in Construction Law.

Board certification is the highest level of recognition by the Florida Bar and demonstrates an attorney’s significant competency and experience in a specialty field of law. Attorneys must meet stringent application criteria before officially becoming certified, including satisfactory peer review assessments as it relates to proficiency, character, ethics and professionalism, completing the certification area’s continuing legal education requirements and passing a rigorous written examination. Only attorneys who have earned the “board-certification” distinction are allowed to describe themselves as legal “specialists” or “experts” in a specific field.

“Board Certification is an achievement I’m very proud of, and I am excited to continue assisting our clients in construction-related matters and all other areas of association law,” said Jeffrey Green. Michael Bender added, “This is a career milestone for Jeffrey that warrants recognition. He’s an extremely knowledgeable and skilled attorney and we appreciate all he has done for the Firm and its clients.”

Congratulations to Jeffrey Green on this impressive achievement.

Latest Videos with Kaye Bender Rembaum

Association Leadership S3:E12 | August 17, 2022 | SB-4D and more on Preparing your 2023 Budget

Lunch & Learn | Cyberstalking and Defamation in Community Associations

 

Tags: ,
Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

  • Posted: Aug 18, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

Mandatory Condominium & Cooperative Building Inspections and Non-Waivable Reserve Requirement

The City of Surfside, Champlain Towers South Related Legislation Already in Effect

 

With home insurers leaving Florida in droves, and following pressure from members of both political parties in the legislature to actually do something about it, in May 2022, the governor called a special legislative session to address the problem. A very real concern to the insurers is the effect of both time and inclement weather on Florida’s aging high-rise buildings. Until now, and for the most part, Florida law largely ignored these concerns. Enter Senate Bill 4-D (SB 4-D), which already became effective upon being signed into law by Governor DeSantis on May 26, 2022. This new piece of legislation addresses condominium and cooperative building inspections and reserve requirements. (While this article primarily addresses these new laws in the context of condominium association application, they are equally applicable to cooperative associations.)

By way of background, during the regular legislative session, there were several bills introduced in the Florida House of Representatives and in the Florida Senate addressing building safety issues, but none of them were passed into law due to the inability to match the language of the bills in both the house and the senate which is a requirement for legislation to pass and go to the governor for consideration. As such, it was a little surprising to many observers that the legislature was able to approve SB 4-D in essentially a 48-hour window during the special session in May. The language used in SB 4-D was initially drafted into a proposed bill in November 2021. At that time and during the most recent legislative session, input was provided by many industry professional groups including engineers, reserve study providers, and association attorneys. Many of these industry professionals indicated that there were challenges with some of the language and concepts being proposed in SB 4-D during session.

Notwithstanding these challenges and in an effort to ensure some form of life safety legislation was passed this year, SB 4-D was unanimously approved in both the house and senate and signed by the governor. A plain reading of this well-intended, but in some instances not completely thought-out, legislation evidences these challenges. Some will say it is a good start that will need significant tweaking, which is expected in the 2023 legislative session. Others praise it, and, yet others say it is an overreach of governmental authority, such as an inability to waive or reduce certain categories of reserves. You be the judge. We begin by examining the mandatory inspection and reserve requirements of SB 4-D.

I. Milestone Inspections: Mandatory Structural Inspections For Condominium and Cooperative Buildings. (§553.899, Fla. Stat.)

You will not find these new milestone inspection requirements in Chapters 718 or 719 of the Florida Statutes, but rather in Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, as cited above.

Milestone Inspections

The term “milestone inspection” means a structural inspection of a building, including an inspection of load-bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary structural systems. The aforementioned terms are defined in §627.706, Florida Statutes, and are to be carried out by a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building. The purpose of such an inspection is not to determine if the condition of an existing building is in compliance with the Florida Building Code or the fire safety code.

Substantial Structural Deterioration

The term “substantial structural deterioration” means substantial structural distress that negatively affects a building’s general structural condition and integrity. The term does not include surface imperfections such as cracks, distortion, sagging, deflections, misalignment, signs of leakage, or peeling of finishes, unless the licensed engineer or architect performing the phase one or phase two inspection determines that such surface imperfections are a sign of substantial structural deterioration.

Milestone Inspections For Buildings Three Stories or More In Height

A condominium association under Chapter 718 and a cooperative association under Chapter 719 must have a milestone inspection performed for each building that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

Within Three Miles of Coastline

If the building is three or more stories in height and is located within three miles of a coastline, the condominium association or cooperative association must have a milestone inspection performed by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 25 years of age, based on the date the certificate of occupancy for the building was issued, and every 10 years thereafter.

The condominium association or cooperative association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance.

The condominium association or cooperative association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

If The Certificate of Occupancy was Issued Before July 1, 1992

If a milestone inspection is required under this statute and the building’s certificate of occupancy was issued on or before July 1, 1992, the building’s initial milestone inspection must be performed before December 31, 2024. If the date of issuance for the certificate of occupancy is not available, the date of issuance of the building’s certificate of occupancy shall be the date of occupancy evidenced in any record of the local building official. 

Upon determining that a building must have a milestone inspection, the local enforcement agency must provide written notice of such required inspection to the condominium association or cooperative association by certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Within 180 days after receiving the written notice, the condominium association or cooperative association must complete phase one of the milestone inspection. For purposes of this section, completion of phase one of the milestone inspection means the licensed engineer or architect who performed the phase one inspection submitted the inspection report by email, United States Postal Service, or commercial delivery service to the local enforcement agency.

A Milestone Inspection Consists of Two Phases

(a) PHASE 1—For phase one of the milestone inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state must perform a visual examination of habitable and non-habitable areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the architect or engineer finds no signs of substantial structural deterioration to any building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection (discussed below) is not required. An architect or engineer who completes a phase one milestone inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report.

(b) PHASE 2—A phase two of the milestone inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector’s direction. The inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations, the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who completes a phase two milestone inspection must prepare and submit an inspection report.

Post-Milestone Inspection Requirements

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection, the architect or engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the building official of the local government which has jurisdiction. The inspection report must, at a minimum, meet all of the following criteria:

  1. Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.
  2. Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.
  3. Identify any substantial structural deterioration within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.
  4. State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed.
  5. Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.
  6. Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

Local Government Enforcement

A local enforcement agency may prescribe timelines and penalties with respect to compliance with the milestone inspection requirements.

A board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance requiring that a condominium or cooperative association schedule or commence repairs for substantial structural deterioration within a specified timeframe after the local enforcement agency receives a phase two inspection report; however, such repairs must be commenced within 365 days after receiving such report. If an association fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for substantial structural deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required timeframe, the local enforcement agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy.

Board’s Duty After Obtaining The Milestone Report

Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection and receipt of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report from the architect or engineer who performed the inspection, the association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery and by electronic transmission to unit owners who previously consented to receive notice by electronic transmission; must post a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium or cooperative property; and must publish the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the association’s website, if the association is required to have a website.

Who Pays for The Milestone Inspection?

Pursuant to §718.112, Florida Statutes, if an association is required to have a milestone inspection performed, the association must arrange for the milestone inspection to be performed and is responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the requirements thereof. The association is responsible for all costs associated with the inspection.

Failure to Obtain the Milestone Inspection

If the officers or directors of an association willfully and knowingly fail to have a milestone inspection performed pursuant to §553.899, Florida Statutes, such failure is a breach of the officers’ and directors’ fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

Manager’s Duty

If a community association manager or a community association management firm has a contract with a community association that has a building on the association’s property that is subject to milestone inspection, the community association manager or the community association management firm must comply with the requirements of performing such inspection as directed by the board.

Exemptions

For clarity, the otherwise required milestone inspection does not apply to a single family, two-family, or three-family dwelling with three or fewer habitable stories above ground.

Florida Building Commission Requirements

The Florida Building Commission must review the milestone inspection requirements and make recommendations, if any, to the legislature to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building. The commission must provide a written report of any recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives by December 31, 2022. 

The Florida Building Commission must consult with the State Fire Marshal to provide recommendations to the legislature for the adoption of comprehensive structural and life safety standards for maintaining and inspecting all types of buildings and structures in this state that are three stories or more in height. The commission must provide a written report of its recommendations to the governor, the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives by December 31, 2023.

II. Structural Integrity Reserve Studies and Mandatory Reserves:

The reserve legislation set out in §718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes, is, for all intents and purposes, re-written. Prior to examining these most recent revisions, it is necessary to first examine the definitions set out in §718.103, Florida Statutes, where a brand-new term is added as follows: 

Structural integrity reserve study means a study of the reserve funds required for future major repairs and replacement of the common areas based on a visual inspection of the common areas applicable to all condominiums and cooperative buildings 3 stories or higher. 

Hereafter, the structural integrity reserve study is referred to as “SIRS.” Now we can turn our attention to the requirements of the SIRS as set out in §718.112 (f)(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

The Structural Integrity Reserve Study (required for all condominium and cooperative buildings three stories or higher regardless of date of certificate of occupancy):

An association must have a SIRS completed at least every 10 years after the condominium’s creation for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height which includes, at a minimum, a study of the following items as related to the structural integrity and safety of the building:

  1. Roof
  2. Load-bearing walls or other primary structural members
  3. Floor
  4. Foundation
  5. Fireproofing and fire protection systems
  6. Plumbing
  7. Electrical systems
  8. Waterproofing and exterior painting
  9. Windows
  10. Any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000 and the failure to replace or maintain such item negatively affects the items listed in subparagraphs a.-i., as determined by the licensed engineer or architect performing the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study.

The SIRS may be performed by any person qualified to perform such study. However, the visual inspection portion of the structural integrity reserve study must be performed by an engineer licensed under Chapter 471 or an architect licensed under Chapter 481. 

As further set out in the legislation, at a minimum, “a structural integrity reserve study must identify the common areas being visually inspected, state the estimated remaining useful life and the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of the common areas being visually inspected, and provide a recommended annual reserve amount that achieves the estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each common area being visually inspected by the end of the estimated remaining useful life of each common area.”

The amount to be reserved for an item is determined by the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study that must be completed by December 31, 2024. If the amount to be reserved for an item is not in the association’s initial or most recent structural integrity reserve study or the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study, the amount must be computed using a formula based upon estimated remaining useful life and estimated replacement cost or deferred maintenance expense of each reserve item.

If the condominium building is less than three stories, then the legislation provides that “in addition to annual operating expenses, the budget must include reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. These accounts must include, but are not limited to, roof replacement, building painting, and pavement resurfacing, regardless of the amount of deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost, and any other item that has a deferred maintenance expense or replacement cost that exceeds $10,000.” 

The association may adjust replacement reserve assessments annually to take into account any changes in estimates or extension of the useful life of a reserve item caused by deferred maintenance. 

If an association fails to complete a SIRS, such failure is a breach of an officer’s and director’s fiduciary relationship to the unit owners.

Non-Waivable and Waivable Reserves In The Unity Owner-Controlled Association

As to the SIRS, the legislation is patently clear that unit owners may not vote for no reserves or lesser reserves for items set forth in the SIRS report. There is ongoing debate among attorneys in regard to whether a condominium under three stories can waive or reduce reserves for any of the reserve items required to be in the SIRS that are included in the under- three-story condominium reserve—for example, roof and painting. (For those interested, examine lines 1029 to 1033 and 1050 to 1071 in SB 4-D.)

Mandatory Reserves In The Developer-Controlled Association

Before turnover of control of an association by a developer to unit owners other than a developer pursuant to §718.301, Florida Statutes, the developer-controlled association may not vote to waive the reserves or reduce the funding of the reserves. (Previously, a developer could fully waive all reserves for the first two years, meaning this is a monumental change.)

Pre-Turnover Developer Duty

Before a developer turns over control of an association to unit owners other than the developer, the developer must have a SIRS completed for each building on the condominium property that is three stories or higher in height.

III. Official Records

Official records of the condominium and cooperative association include structural integrity reserve studies, financial reports of the association or condominium, and a copy of the inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium or cooperative property. 

In addition to the right to inspect and copy the declaration, bylaws, and rules, renters have the right to inspect the milestone inspection report and structural integrity reserve study inspection reports as well.

Structural integrity reserve studies must be maintained for at least 15 years after the study is completed. In addition, inspection reports and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property must be maintained for 15 years after receipt of such report.

IV. Association Websites

In addition to other positing requirements, the inspection reports described above and any other inspection report relating to a structural or life safety inspection of condominium property and the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study must be posted to the website.

V. Jurisdiction of Division of Condominiums, Timeshares and Mobile Homes

Pre-turnover, the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (Division) may enforce and ensure compliance with rules relating to the development, construction, sale, lease, ownership, operation, and management of residential condominium units, and complaints related to the procedural completion of milestone inspections. After turnover has occurred, the Division has jurisdiction to investigate complaints related only to financial issues, elections, and the maintenance of and unit owner access to association records, and the procedural completion of structural integrity reserve studies.

VI. New Reporting Requirements For All Condominium and Cooperative Associations

On or before January 1, 2023, condominium associations existing on or before July 1, 2022, must provide the following information to the Division in writing, by email, United States Postal Service, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery, at a physical address or email address provided by the division and on a form posted on the division’s website:

  1. The number of buildings on the condominium property that are three stories or higher in height.
  2. The total number of units in all such buildings.
  3. The addresses of all such buildings.
  4. The counties in which all such buildings are located.

An association must provide an update in writing to the division if there are any changes to the information in the list within six months after the change.

VII. Applicable To All Sellers of Units

As a part of the sales process, the seller of a condominium or cooperative unit and developers must provide to potential purchasers a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the milestone inspection report and a copy of the association’s most recent structural integrity reserve study or a statement that the association has not completed a structural integrity reserve study.

VIII. Glitches

As with any new legislation of such a substantial nature, there often follow in subsequent years what are referred to as “glitch bills” which help provide additional clarity, remove ambiguity, and fix unintended errors. Some observe are (i) the term “common areas” is used in the legislation when in fact the correct term is “common element;” (ii) clarity needs to be provided regarding whether reserve items that are required to be in SIRS, but show up in the under-three-story reserves, such as paint and paving, can be waived or reduced by the membership; and (iii) for those buildings that are within three miles of the coastline, additional clarity could be provided to provide better guidance as to how to perform the measurement.

Tags: , , ,
Part Two: New Condo Inspection Bill – Get your questions answered!

Part Two: New Condo Inspection Bill – Get your questions answered!

  • Posted: Aug 02, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on Part Two: New Condo Inspection Bill – Get your questions answered!

Part Two: New Condo Inspection Bill

Get your questions answered!
Thursday, Aug. 4, 2022 | Noon Eastern | Live via Zoom
Featuring Michael S. Bender, Esq., BCS from Kaye Bender Rembaum
and Scott Harvey-Lewis from Building Mavens.
Join us for this second webinar on the new condo inspection bill. Get answers to your questions from Evan Bradley at Campbell Property Management, Attorney Michael S. Bender from Kaye Bender Rembaum and Engineer Scott Harvey-Lewis from Building Mavens. We will discuss how these inspections might actually work, what they may cost, and more!
Be sure to ask your question about the new condo inspection bill when you register. We will do our best to answer as many questions as possible.
Tags:
The Screening Process: How to Develop Procedures and Train Your Screening Committee

The Screening Process: How to Develop Procedures and Train Your Screening Committee

  • Posted: Jul 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on The Screening Process: How to Develop Procedures and Train Your Screening Committee
If you know anyone who will benefit from these events, please share this email.
CAMS…please share with your Boards and interested homeowners.
Wednesday, July 20, 2022
5:00pm to 6:00pm Eastern | Live via Zoom
The Screening Process: How to Develop Procedures and Train Your Screening Committee
Join Lisa A. Magill, Esq., BCS from our Pompano Beach office.
Associations often fail to have clearly defined procedures for handling transfer (sale/lease) approvals, leading to liability exposure, not only for the corporation, but also for individual board members and Community Association Managers (CAMs). Participants in this course will learn how to create and adopt transfer approval procedures, what should be included on the transfer approval application, how to comply with local government ordinances, how to comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements and how to train screening committee members, board members and staff to conduct the transfer approval process and interview.
Course# 9630149 | Provider# 0005092 | 1 CEU in HR
The Kaye Bender Rembaum Team Remains Available To You and Your Community Association
Visit KBRLegal.com for awesome free resources, including 2021 Legislation, news with Legal Morsels and Rembaum’s Association Roundup, and our Event Calendar, including upcoming free classes.
Kaye Bender Rembaum | Visit Us Online
Pompano: 1200 Park Central Boulevard South; Tel: 954.928.0680
Palm Beach Gardens: 9121 North Military Trail, Ste. 200; Tel: 561.241.4462
Tampa: 1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Ste. 409; Tel: 813.375.0731
Tags: , ,
WILL THE NEW LAWS BE DEVASTATING FINANCIALLY TO SOME FLORIDA RESIDENTS?

WILL THE NEW LAWS BE DEVASTATING FINANCIALLY TO SOME FLORIDA RESIDENTS?

  • Posted: Jul 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on WILL THE NEW LAWS BE DEVASTATING FINANCIALLY TO SOME FLORIDA RESIDENTS?

WILL THE NEW LAWS BE DEVASTATING FINANCIALLY TO SOME FLORIDA RESIDENTS?

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

In a word — YES. Are all these new laws really necessary?  In a word –YES.  This is all happening due to a complete lack of foresight and planning by The Florida Legislature.  Mandatory Reserves and Mandatory Inspections should always have been the law.  I urged The Florida Legislature in May of 2018 to make reserves mandatory.  Instead they waited for a building to collapse and for 98 people to die before making these common sense laws.  Of course a building should require an inspection after 25 or 30 years.  Of course a building should be required to make necessary repairs to prevent a potential collapse.  Of course a building should be required to put away money each month for future repairs.  Of course that amount should be determined by a professional architect or engineer and not an unqualified board member who has a financial interest in the outcome of the reserve study. These laws should have been required thirty years ago, as building started to boom.  Instead however, The Florida Legislature always caved to the developer lobby in order to keep the cost of living in a condominium artificially cheap, and the sale of units flowing.  Now, because these laws were not in place thirty years ago, current condominium owners have a lot of catching up to do financially to pay for the sins of the past.

 

The days of a couple or a widower from up north retiring to a high rise condominium in Florida if their sole income is social security are done and over.  That cannot happen anymore.  They need to look for a condominium less than three stories in height that has some reserves put away.

 

If your condominium is at least 30 years old and is 6 stories or higher, has no fire sprinklers or  Engineered life safety system, has not yet undergone a Mandatory Phase One and Phase Two Inspection, has not made the repairs required by those inspections and has no reserves in the bank, you are now forced to either sell your condominium unit immediately or pay massive special assessments that you may not be able to afford, or even come close to affording it.

 

On the flip side, if your condominium is at least 30 years old and is 6 stories or higher, and already has fire sprinklers or  an Engineered life safety system, has already undergone a Mandatory Phase One and Phase Two Inspection, has already made the necessary repairs, and is fully funding reserves, you have little to nothing to worry about.  Your monthly assessments should remain where they are, give or take the increases in insurance that are simply astronomical.

 

Developers are waiting to pounce.  They are focusing their attention on those condominium at least 30 years old and are 6 stories or higher, but has no fire sprinklers or Engineered life safety system, has not yet undergone a Mandatory Phase One and Phase Two Inspection, and has not made the repairs that will be required by those inspections and has no reserves in the bank.  Developers will be approaching the Boards of these condominiums with offers to buy everyone’s unit for a certain price.  You will either consent to selling or have to pay the costs for all these inspections, repairs and funding of reserves.  For many there will be no choice at all.  They will have to sell and somehow find housing elsewhere.

 

Like everything else, the poor people or even the average workers who had saved up enough money for a down payment on their condo and proudly purchased their unit, they will get hit the hardest.  In reality, in upper class buildings, they were either putting reserve money aside all along, or worse comes to worse they can stroke a check for these increased costs.  They’re OK.

 

This will take years to sort out.  Some condos simply won’t be able to comply with the new laws and the owners will sell out to a developer.  Some condominiums will opt not to sell and pass massive special assessments and/or borrow the money from a bank.  Either way their expenses are going up.  Many associations will be foreclosing on many of their owners who can’t afford these special assessments.  I can tell you that even before these massive changes go into effect, foreclosures are already on the rise, simply due to nearly $6.00 per gallon of gasoline and out of control food prices.  These new laws will start what I believe will be a tremendous increase in foreclosures, perhaps as bad as 2007 and 2008.  Yet, all of it is necessary.  You can’t allow buildings not to get inspected, you can’t allow building not to get fixed, you can’t allow buildings not to have fire safety measures and you can’t allow buildings to deliberately waive a requirement to put funds away each month for future structural repairs.

 

The Band Aid was ripped off in one shot.  As a result, Florida condominiums and their owners will have some tough financial times ahead.  There will definitely be gentrification in some neighborhoods.  The look, feel and face of Florida will change going forward.  If only these measures were passed when these buildings were being built so people would not be forced out of their homes today.  There simply was no foresight and now the change won’t be smooth and gradual, but will be difficult and immediate.  And yet, there’s no other way to go.  A collapse like Champlain Towers can never happen again.

 

Tags:
THE NEW CONDO LAWS —- MANDATORY INSPECTIONS – PART ONE & PART TWO

THE NEW CONDO LAWS —- MANDATORY INSPECTIONS – PART ONE & PART TWO

  • Posted: Jun 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on THE NEW CONDO LAWS —- MANDATORY INSPECTIONS – PART ONE & PART TWO

Let’s start discussing the new condominium laws that go into effect on July 1st.  We won’t cover them all in one week, so look forward to next week’s blog as well.

IF YOU HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMPANY the statute says:

If a community association manager or a community association management firm has a contract with a community association that has a building on the association’s property that is subject to s. 553.899, (the Mandatory Inspections statute) the community association manager or the community association management firm must comply with that section as directed by the board.

This is a weird provision to me.  Clearly, it’s warning managers and management companies to comply with the new mandatory inspection statute. But it also says “as directed by the board.”  What does that mean?  Suppose the board tells the manager that they are deliberately not complying with the new mandatory inspection statute? Does that get the management company off the hook?  Can the management company now sit back and do nothing?  I certainly don’t think that’s the intent of the statute, but it should definitely be clearer.  In any event, at least to me, the management company must not hinder the association’s efforts to comply with the new mandatory inspection statute.  If I were a manager or management company, I would document my efforts thru e-mails to all of the Board members urging them to comply and reminding them of their responsibility to comply with the new mandatory inspection requirements.

Remember, prior to this new law becoming effective, only Dade and Broward had mandatory / structural inspection requirements.  Well, we now have in every Florida county something called milestone inspections — and there is part one and part two.

In every county in Florida, your first milestone/structural  inspection is after 30 years and every ten years thereafter.  But, if your condo is ON THE COAST or within three miles of the coast, your first milestone/structural inspection is AFTER TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND EVERY TEN YEARS THEREAFTER. And this applies to every condo or co-op that is three stories or more in height by December 31 of the year in which the building reaches 30 years of age

The structural inspection of a building, including an inspection of load-bearing walls and the primary structural members and primary structural systems, must be done by by a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state for the purposes of attesting to the life safety and adequacy of the structural components of the building and, to the extent reasonably possible, determining the general structural condition of the building as it affects the safety of such building, including a determination of any necessary maintenance, repair, or replacement of any structural component of the building.

If the building’s certificate of occupancy was issued on or before July 1, 1992, meaning that you are already 30 years old, the building’s initial milestone inspection must be performed before December 31, 2024.

 

Here is what’s required in a Phase One Inspection:

PHASE ONE — (a) For phase one of the milestone inspection, a licensed architect or engineer authorized to practice in this state shall perform a visual examination of habitable and nonhabitable areas of a building, including the major structural components of a building, and provide a qualitative assessment of the structural conditions of the building. If the architect or engineer finds no signs of substantial structural deterioration to any building components under visual examination, phase two of the inspection, as provided in paragraph (b), is not required.

In all candor, in a post Champlain Towers world, if I’m the phase one guy — I don’t want to be sued for saying this building is in perfect shape and doesn’t even need a phase two inspection.  I think the Phase One Inspection will Always result in the First architect or engineer calling for a Phase Two study.  What does he or she have to lose?

MANDATORY BUILDING INSPECTIONS – PART TWO

By Eric Glazer, Esq.

So last week we discussed the fact that the change in the law will now require every condominium building in the state that is 3 stories or higher and at least 30 years old (25 years old if within 3 miles of the coast) to undergo a Phase One inspection, every 10 years, by a licensed architect or engineer who is looking for visual signs of structural damage to the building.

Now if I’m the guy doing the Phase One Inspection, it’s pretty likely that I’m going to find something that requires a Phase Two inspection.  Why not?  Is it worth the potential liability for saying the building is fine and then someone is injured or killed because of a structural defect?  Of course not.  So count on lots of Phase Two Inspections.  Here is what that entails:

 

PHASE TWO – Only If found to be necessary after the Phase One Inspection

(b) A phase two of the milestone inspection must be performed if any substantial structural deterioration is identified during phase one. A phase two inspection may involve destructive or nondestructive testing at the inspector’s direction. The inspection may be as extensive or as limited as necessary to fully assess areas of structural distress in order to confirm that the building is structurally sound and safe for its intended use and to recommend a program for fully assessing and repairing distressed and damaged portions of the building. When determining testing locations, the inspector must give preference to locations that are the least disruptive and most easily repairable while still being representative of the structure. An inspector who completes a phase two milestone inspection shall prepare and submit an inspection report pursuant to subsection (8).

(8) Upon completion of a phase one or phase two milestone inspection, the architect or engineer who performed the inspection must submit a sealed copy of the inspection report with a separate summary of, at minimum, the material findings and recommendations in the inspection report to the condominium association or cooperative association, and to the building official of the local government which has jurisdiction. The inspection report must, at a minimum, meet all of the following criteria:

(a) Bear the seal and signature, or the electronic signature, of the licensed engineer or architect who performed the inspection.

(b) Indicate the manner and type of inspection forming the basis for the inspection report.

(c) Identify any substantial structural deterioration, within a reasonable professional probability based on the scope of the inspection, describe the extent of such deterioration, and identify any recommended repairs for such deterioration.

(d) State whether unsafe or dangerous conditions, as those terms are defined in the Florida Building Code, were observed.

(e) Recommend any remedial or preventive repair for any items that are damaged but are not substantial structural deterioration.

(f) Identify and describe any items requiring further inspection.

THE ASSOCIATION’S RESPONSIBILITY

(9) The association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each condominium unit owner or cooperative unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery and by electronic transmission to unit owners who previously consented to receive notice by electronic transmission; must post a copy of the inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium or cooperative property; and must publish the full report and inspector prepared summary on the association’s website, if the association is required to have a website.

 (10) A local enforcement agency may prescribe timelines and penalties with respect to compliance with this section.

(11) A board of county commissioners may adopt an ordinance requiring that a condominium or cooperative association schedule or commence repairs for substantial structural deterioration within a specified timeframe after the local enforcement agency receives a phase two inspection report; however, such repairs must be commenced within 365 days after receiving such report. If an association fails to submit proof to the local enforcement agency that repairs have been scheduled or have commenced for substantial structural deterioration identified in a phase two inspection report within the required timeframe, the local enforcement agency must review and determine if the building is unsafe for human occupancy.

The bottom line is that if forced to do a Phase One inspection, you can ensure you will be required to do a Phase Two Inspection.  The Phase Two Inspection will be costly and the architect or engineer performing the study has full reign over the property.  What they say needs fixing, needs fixing.  And what do they have to lose in stating that certain structural repairs should be made?  On the other hand, they have a lot to lose if they don’t recommend a fix and catastrophe strikes.  Rest assured that Phase Two Study will require repairs and they won’t come cheap.

 

Tags: , ,
WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

  • Posted: Jun 14, 2022
  • By:
  • Comments: Comments Off on WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION? Article by KBR Legal

WHO REPAIRS THE INCIDENTAL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ASSOCIATION?

 Imagine: the association has just informed you it is set to begin a massive concrete restoration project. As part of the project, the contractor will need access to the rebar beneath the concrete slab connected to (or in legalese, “appurtenant to”) your unit’s balcony. To access the balcony slab, the contractor will have to remove the custom Italian tiles you just installed on your balcony. Who is responsible for the costs of the removal? Who is responsible to replace the tiles? The answers to these questions will largely depend on whether the governing documents of the association include an “incidental damage clause” and the specific circumstances of the situation, too.

In its most simplistic sense, an incidental damage clause in the declaration means that the association is responsible to repair any “incidental damage” caused by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and/or replacement responsibility. However, the existence or absence of such language is not always dispositive as to the repair responsibility. This is similar to “i” before “e” unless after “c” as there always seem to be exceptions.

For example, the repair and replacement obligation of the association may be limited only to damage caused to the unit and not cover any owner improvements to limited common elements, such as the balcony; or the obligation may be limited to damage to improvements only as originally installed by the developer, too. Whether the association or the owner will be responsible to repair the damage is highly fact-specific and will depend on the exact language in the governing documents of the association. Arbitration decisions of the Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes (the Division), discussed below, provide some guidance as to when the association may be responsible for incidental damage and when the owners will be responsible to repair same. That said, bear in mind that such decisions are not precedential and in addition only apply to the parties in the arbitration that resulted in the Division’s order. However, it does provide a good understanding of how the Division may rule in a similar circumstance.

As discussed above, where the governing documents contain incidental damage language, and the association damages a portion of the unit while conducting its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, the association is likely responsible for the repair. This is illustrated in Rock v. Point East Three Condominium Corporation, Inc., Arb. Case No. 99-0220, Final Order (September 29, 2000).

In Rock, the association removed a shelf located under a sink and several wall tiles in order to repair rough plumbing in the common elements. The association replaced the wall tiles but did not replace the shelf after the repairs were completed. The unit owner sought, among other things, to have the association replace the shelf. The unit owner also sought to have the association repair tiles in the dining room of the unit which had “popped up” as a result of an unrelated water leak. The association’s declaration of condominium provided that the association was responsible to repair conduits and rough plumbing and provided that “[a]ll incidental damage caused to an apartment by such work shall be promptly repaired by the association.” The arbitrator ordered the association to replace the shelf, holding that the incidental damage to the shelf was caused by the repair to the rough plumbing, which was the association’s duty to maintain. As such, the incidental damage language of the declaration applied to the shelf. However, the arbitrator held the association was not responsible to replace the tiles in the dining room, as the damage to the tiles was not incidental to any work the association performed to repair the rough plumbing.

Therefore, Rock clearly establishes that while an association is responsible to repair portions of the unit that are damaged as a result of the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation, the damage must be incidental to the association’s work.

If the declaration requires the association to repair or replace incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair and replace owner modifications to the units, too, unless the declaration provides otherwise. In Brickell Town House Association, Inc. v. Del Valle, et al., Arb. Case No. 95-0133 Final Order (September 12, 1995), the association was required to remove certain owner-installed alterations to the unit in order to access and maintain the common elements. The unit owners asserted that the association was responsible to replace the alterations in accordance with the incidental damage provision in the declaration of condominium. The arbitrator agreed, holding that the association was required to reimburse the owners for the expenses required to restore the units to the condition which existed immediately prior to the association’s reconstruction activities, including betterments which were added by the unit owners since the original construction of the units by the developer.

In accordance with the holdings in Brickell and Rock, if the governing documents provide that the association is responsible for incidental damage to the unit, the association will likely be responsible to repair any portions of the unit damaged by the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibility, including alterations made by owners (unless specifically provided for otherwise).

On a different note, if the governing documents of the association contain incidental damage language which is specific to damage caused to units, then the association will not be responsible for incidental damage caused to owner modifications to the common elements or the limited common elements. Similarly, the association will likely not be responsible to repair any damage to any owner alteration to a unit where the declaration required association approval and the owner failed to obtain same prior to installation of the improvement.

In Continental Towers, Inc. v. Nassif, Arb. Case No. 99-0866, Summary Final Order (November 24, 1999), the association needed to conduct concrete restoration, waterproofing, and other repairs to the unit owner balconies. The unit owners had installed tiles on the balcony and argued that the association was responsible for the replacement of the tile because the declaration provided that the association was responsible for incidental damage to the unit. However, the balcony was part of the common elements, not the unit. Therefore, the incidental damage language in the declaration did not apply to the tile, and, absent any other agreement between the parties, the association had no responsibility to repair and replace same. The arbitrator concluded that:

…in the absence of an agreement between the parties or a controlling provision of the documents, ‘it cannot be said from the mere fact of association permission that the association has assumed the perpetual obligation to remove and replace the personal property when necessary to repair and replace the common elements.’ The arbitrator adopts the rationale articulated in the Carriage House case. Since the balcony is a part of the common elements, and the tile was not part of the original construction, the unit owners are responsible for its removal and replacement.

Further, where there are owner modifications which were not approved as required by the declaration, the association will likely not be responsible to repair notwithstanding the incidental damage requirement set out in the declaration. In Harrison v. Land’s End Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No. 94-0298, Final Order (June 27, 1995), the association was required to remove an owner-installed balcony finish in order to effectuate repairs to the balcony slab. In this case, the balcony was considered part of the unit, and the declaration contained a provision requiring the association to repair incidental damage to the unit. The declaration also required the owner to obtain approval of the association before making any alterations to the bal-cony. However, the owner never obtained such approval. Therefore, despite the incidental damage provision, the arbitrator determined that the association was not responsible to replace the balcony finish because the owner did not obtain association approval as required by the declaration.

Therefore, if an alteration requires association approval and an owner fails to obtain such approval, the association will far more likely not be responsible to repair any incidental damage to the alteration notwithstanding the existence of incidental damage language.

Generally, the association’s repair obligation is limited to actual damage caused to the unit as a result of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligation. If the unit owners are required to vacate their unit in order for the association to effectuate the repairs, the association is not generally responsible to reimburse the owners for the costs of same. However, as the Brickell case, discussed above, shows us, that is not always the case. In Brickell, the owners also argued that the association was responsible to reimburse them for the costs they incurred in vacating the unit for the repairs. In this case, the association chose to proceed with a method of repairing damage to common element pipes from the interior of the units, which required the unit owners in the affected units to vacate. The association did not explore an option in which the repairs could be made from the exterior, which would permit the unit owners to remain in the unit. The arbitrator agreed with the owners and ordered the association to pay for the costs the owners incurred in vacating the units. As you can glean, this case is very fact specific, which led to this outcome.

In an order denying the association’s motion for rehearing, the arbitrator in Brickell, reiterated its earlier decision that the board, within its business judgment, decided to proceed with a method of reconstruction that required the removal of the owners. Therefore, the expenses of those owners are a common expense to be borne by all owners. The important consideration in this case was the fact that the association proceeded with the repairs from the interior without exploring options to proceed from the exterior. The arbitrator notes that the order should not be construed to mean that an association would be responsible for accommodations for all unit owners in the event that the condominium building had to be tented for termites, or if a hurricane rendered the building uninhabitable. In those cases, all owners would be required to vacate the units, and there can be no other decision of the board. Additionally, in Brickell, if there was no way for the association to make the repairs that would allow the owners to remain in unit, the arbitrator’s decision may have been different. How-ever, as the association chose to displace certain unit owners to effectuate the repairs without exploring any other options, the association was responsible for the owners’ costs to vacate.

Finally, even when there is no incidental damage language in the governing documents, the association may be responsible for damage to the units if the association fails to conduct necessary maintenance to the common elements, when the association knows that such maintenance is necessary. In Dibiase v. Beneva Ridge, Arb. Case No. 92-0210, Final Order (January 19, 1994), the association was aware that the common element parking area was consistently flooding into an owner’s unit. The association retained an engineer to conduct a drainage study, and the engineer recommended several remedial measures to address the drainage problem. While the association took some remedial steps, the association did not follow through on the study’s recommendations. The arbitrator concluded that the association was responsible for the owner’s costs to repair the unit caused by the flooding. The arbitrator explained that, while “[n]o association is required to protect the property against a 100-year storm…” the association was responsible to take those steps reasonably necessary to protect the condominium property.

As the association had an expert report that advised if the association did not take certain remedial measures, the damage to the condominium property would continue, the association had an obligation to make the repairs. As the association failed to follow the report, it was responsible for the damage caused to the unit.

In accordance with the decision in Dibiase, if the association receives a report from an expert advising that certain repairs must be performed, and the association fails to take action, the association may be responsible for the costs of any damage to the units caused by its failure to act.

As you have likely gleaned from the foregoing discussion, it can be difficult to determine who is responsible to repair and replace improvements damaged during the association’s exercise of its maintenance, repair, and replacement obligations. Given the complexities of the issue, your association should consult with its legal counsel with any inquiries regarding the association’s responsibility for incidental damage.

Kaye Bender Rembaum

We are dedicated to providing clients with an unparalleled level of personalized and professional service regardless of their size and takes into account their individual needs and financial concerns. Our areas of concentration include

1200 Park Central Boulevard South, Pompano Beach, FL. Tel: 954.928.0680
9121 North Military Trail, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Tel: 561.241.4462
1211 N. Westshore Boulevard, Suite 409, Tampa, FL. Tel: 813.375.0731
  • Assessment collections
  • Construction defect claims
  • Contract drafting and negotiation
  • Cooperatives
  • Covenant enforcement
  • Fair Housing
  • Land Use and Zoning
  • Litigation and Arbitration
  • Master/ Sub Association Issues
  • Pre and Post Turnover Planning
  • Real Estate and Title Concerns
  • Review and amendment of covenants

 

Tags: ,